Indian Evidence Act- Confession (Section 24-30)

Introduction

We all know meaning of confession. That might be the reason that Evidence Act don’t define confession anywhere.

Who can make confession? Is every confession admissible? What if somebody force you to confess? All these questions are answered from section 24 to section 30 in Indian Evidence Act.

“It can be defined as an admission made at any time by a person charged with crime suggesting the inference that he committed a crime.”

This is not general definition but VIP definition given by Stephen in his “Digest of Law of Evidence”.

Confession indicates that person who is making the admission have committed the crime.

Confession must either admit in terms of the offence or at any rate substantially all the facts which constitute the offence. It mean facts must be related to offence only.

The confession must be accepted in totality or rejected as whole and the court is not competent to accept only inculpatery and reject ex-culpatery. (Balvinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab). It means with confession cannot be admitted in part and court don’t have discretion to admit only part of the confession.

In Pandu Khadiya Vs State of Orissa, one person was roaming and shouting “I killed my wife”.  Court held that this is not a confession. Court opined that confession must be addressed to some person

Kinds of Confession

Judicial Confession

Judicial confession is a confession which is made before magistrate or court in due course of judicial proceedings. Judicial confession is relevant and is used as evidence against the maker provided it is recorded according to provisions of S.164 of CrPC.

Extra Judicial Confession

Extra judicial confession is confession to any other person than the judicial authority. For example some acts like NDPS, MCOCA confession to Police officer become valid.

 

Retracted confession

When person confessed earlier and later retract from it, such confessions are called as retracted confession.

Will this destroy the evidentiary value of the confession made earlier? Court said that if earlier confession can be corroborated by additional evidences, such confession can be acted upon.

Confession by co-accused

 

Section 30 deals with confession by co-accused. When co-accused or partner in crime gives confession, such confessions are confession by co-accused

Sections

Section 24-Confession caused by inducement, threat or promise when irrelevant in Criminal proceeding

If confession is appears to have caused by

<![if !supportLists]>1.   <![endif]>Inducement

<![if !supportLists]>2.   <![endif]>Threat

<![if !supportLists]>3.   <![endif]>Promise

Then such confession would not be admitted.

It means confession should be voluntary to be admissible.

Section 25- Confession to the police officer not to be proved

Any confession made to police officer is cannot be admitted as evidence. Why? If admitted imagine abuse of power.

Below are things involved in section 25

<![if !supportLists]>·        <![endif]>There is confession made

<![if !supportLists]>·        <![endif]>Confession made to police officer

<![if !supportLists]>·        <![endif]>Accused made the statement

<![if !supportLists]>·        <![endif]>Such statements  cannot be used against confession maker

Who is police officer?

In Rajkumar Karwal Vs Kripa Mohan, Supreme Court held that Custom officer is not police officer. Similarly Railway Police officer, NDPS officer are not police officer and confession made to them will be admitted.

Police patil, in village is also a police officer.

If police officer is your neighbour, and you go and confess to him in capacity of neighbour such statements will be admissible.

In one of the case confession letter was sent to police officer. This confession was held to valid because this is not made in front of police officer.

 

Section 26- Confession by accused while in custody of police not be proved against him

What do you mean by custody?

When your movement is restricted by some arrangement, you are in custody. When you are in a custody you cannot move freely.

This section states that when you are in custody of police officer, your confession cannot be proved in the court.

In R Vs Wester, police officer was carrying accused in Tonga. Tonga got some problem while carriage. Police officer went to search new Tonga. When police officer left, accused made confession to Tonga driver. Now the question is whether confession is made in custody?

Court held that accused was in police custody, because his free movement was restricted and hence it was held confession is not admissible

Section 27-How much information received from accused may be proved

In confession, one accused confessed to police officer “I commit theft and   Gold stolen is kept at particular place” and if you can come I can show those things. Since this is confession to police officer can this be admissible? How much of accused statement would be admissible?

In this case “I commit theft” will not be admissible. However if Gold is recovered at place, then this fact would be admissible

Below are element of this section

<![if !supportLists]>1)   <![endif]>Confession maker should be accused in particular offence

<![if !supportLists]>2)   <![endif]>Some fact should be discovered from accused

<![if !supportLists]>3)   <![endif]>Confession is made in police custody

<![if !supportLists]>4)   <![endif]>Discovered material should be related to offence under which accused is being tried.

Section 28- Confession made after removal of impression cause by inducement, threat or promise relevant

Section 24 states that confession under inducement, threat or promise is not relevant.  This section states that if the impression of inducement, threat or promise is over, and confession is made then such confession would be relevant.

For example, if accused was threatened to give confession, and taken to judicial magistrate, judicial magistrate ask some question. It appear to magistrate that accused in under fear, so accused is sent back to custody. If after 7 days if there impression of threat is gone and accuse make a confession, then such confession would be admissible.

Section 29- Confession otherwise relevant not to become irrelevant because of promise of secrecy

Section 24 states that confession made under promise is not admissible. This section is sort of exception to section 24. If there is promise of secrecy and confession is taken then such confession would be admissible.

If friend promise to keep confession secret and accused make confession to such friend, then confession made to friend will be relevant.

Section 30- Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and other jointly under trial for same offence

Take this example. Nirav and Vijay are tried for looting a bank. Vijay confess that we looted a bank, and he said they distributed the money among themselves.

Vijay is confession about himself, but he is also taking Nirav along. Can this confession of Vijay can be relevant against Nirav?

This section gives the answer of above question in affirmative. It mean confession of Vijay can be used against Nirav too.

Below are some essential elements

<![if !supportLists]>1)   <![endif]>More than one accused

<![if !supportLists]>2)   <![endif]>All accused tried in same offence

<![if !supportLists]>3)   <![endif]>One of them should confess

<![if !supportLists]>4)   <![endif]>In confession, confession maker should include other accused also

<![if !supportLists]>5)   <![endif]>Such confession would be relevant